Implications: Pursuit of Wealth
In todays world, money has become an obsession. Most everyone dreams of they day they can own a home, buy an expensive car, travel, purchase expensive clothes, etc. Today we are obsessed with having as much money as possible and thinking that is what defines happiness and success. While it might or might not define happiness, it definitely defines whether you can afford to own a home or not. Unfortunately for some, owning a home is far from being attainable. For example, currently in Los Angeles, CA homes on average sell in the high $600,000’s but they do not cost nearly as much to build in materials (Zillow). Minimum wage is $10.00 in Los Angeles, CA, this shows that someone getting paid minimum wage makes $20,800 a year and is no where near being able to own private property (Gov.ca). What does this mean? It means the rich can own private property but the rest of the hard working people that only earn minimum wage cannot own private property and this can cause problems.
What exactly is private property? Private property is the ownership of property from a non-government person. Philosophers Aristotle and Plato had two different views on private property. Aristotle believed that being able to have private property would be more productive and progressive in terms of taking care of something and growing as a person. As Rothbard states, “Aristotle wove together his economic and moral theories by providing the brilliant insight that only private property furnishes people with the opportunity to act morally…”, implying that only the experience of owning private property can teach people how to be independent and work hard to be rewarded with the ability to be able to own private property (Rothbard). He also felt that private property would lead to less conflicts between people.
Plato did not believe in private property like Aristotle did. Plato believed that ownership of private property would contribute to self interest and corruption, essentially leading people to be greedy. What Plato did not want was for people to become greedy and only look out for themselves causing them to neglect the greater good of everyone else. Another reason why Plato was opposed to private property was because he did not want there to be division between the people instead he thought living in a community would be more unifying than having private property. He felt the division that private property would cause would be filled with conflicts and would only create more problems (Rothbard). It would become the rich vs the poor.
Both Plato and Aristotle have different viewpoints but in my opinion they each have some valid points. In a way I can agree with Aristotle in that private property can be motivating and help individuals become hard workers. Everyone strives to own private property one day (Machan). They work hard and save hoping it will become a reality. I also agree with Aristotle on his belief of private owners learning to grow and become independent because of private property. At the same time though I can also see private property as being intimidating to some. It can be intimidating to those who feel that they are not capable enough in being able to be a private property owner on their own and would rather rather have help or support from others while living in a community setting. Not only intimidating from not feeling capable enough to care for their property on their own but intimidated from having to forge a skill that will provide enough to own a private property.
In todays age there are definitely obstacles that halt many from being able to own private property. One of which is the low wage and high property costs. Due to the low wages and high property costs many do not come close to being able to own their own property so instead many have to rent someone else’s private property in order to not be without shelter. Those that are renting are poor and those they are renting from are rich. It appears that what Plato did not want to happen actually happened. Private owners capitalize on their properties and rent to the poor, making them richer and the poor poorer. Private property owners are taking in rent checks and buying more properties, while the poor are slaving away to make rent payments but in the end their money is not going to something they will ever own.
Besides the division of the rich and the poor there is also greed and selfishness. Laws in todays age exist that give the ability of taking away one’s private property to local governments and law enforcement. Eminent domain is a law that allows government to take away private property for public utilization such as building roads, highways, or bridges. Wilson writes, “In Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could condemn homes and businesses, not for a genuine public use but to hand them over to private developers.” Which clearly shows how the law is corrupt and is being used by the rich for personal gain. Another law which gives law enforcement the ability to take possession of one’s private property with or without being charged or committing a crime is called the Civil forfeiture law (Wilson). It’s evident that implications such as greed and division are relevant in 2018 and it only seems to be getting worse.